A vacated judgment legally voids a previous legal judgment. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. Rules of procedure may allow vacatur either at the request of a party or sua sponte.
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that reproduction does qualify as a major life activity according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
al-Marri v. Spagone, 555 U.S. 1220 (2009), was a legal case in which the United States Supreme Court had to decide whether individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely for suspected wrongdoing without being charged with a crime and tried before a jury. The case was dismissed as moot on March 6, 2009, by the application of the Acting Solicitor General to transfer petitioner from military custody to the custody of the Attorney General.
Vanessa Ruiz is a senior associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits. In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial parts of the Supplemental Security Income program's regulation on determining disability for children were inconsistent with the Social Security Act, particularly the statutory standard of "comparable severity". The suit highlighted what some felt was the need for a step in the evaluation of childhood disability claims that would be akin to the functional evaluation considered in many adult claims. It resulted in the addition of a consideration of functioning, and not merely medical severity, in children's SSI claims. The decision was rendered on February 20, 1990.
United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the protection of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), passed by the U.S. Congress, extends to persons held in a state prison and protects prison inmates from discrimination on the basis of disability by prison personnel. Specifically, the court held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12165., is a proper use of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, making it applicable to prison system officials.
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.
Cardona v. Shinseki was an appeal brought in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) of a decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals upholding the denial of service-connected disability benefits for the dependent wife of a female veteran. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs denied the disability benefits based on the definition of "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex" under federal statute. On March 11, 2014, the CAVC dismissed the case as moot after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs advised the Court that he would neither defend nor enforce the federal statute. Cardona subsequently received full payment of her spousal benefits, retroactive to her date of application.
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump was a case brought before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), hotel and restaurant owner Eric Goode, an association of restaurants known as ROC United, and an Embassy Row hotel event booker named Jill Phaneuf alleged that the defendant, President Donald Trump, was in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, a constitutional provision that bars the president or any other federal official from taking gifts or payments from foreign governments. CREW filed its complaint on January 23, 2017, shortly after Trump was inaugurated as president. An amended complaint, adding the hotel and restaurant industry plaintiffs, was filed on April 18, 2017. A second amended complaint was filed on May 10, 2017. CREW was represented by several prominent lawyers and legal scholars in the case.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC and also known as NYSRPA I to distinguish it from the subsequent case, was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one's home, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. It was the first major gun-related case that the Supreme Court had accepted for review in nearly ten years, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and the New York State Legislature amended city and state law respectively to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule".
Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary (2020), No. 19-1328, was a court decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case weighs whether a committee of the House of Representatives can assert the House's "sole power of impeachment" to subpoena materials gathered as part of a federal grand jury investigation which are ordinarily secret. Due to changes in the government by the time of the 2020 election, many of the aspects leading to the case have become unnecessary, and the Supreme Court ruled the case moot in orders released in July 2021.
Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550 U.S. 511 (2007) is a United States Supreme court case in which the court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act. This case was the first Speech or Debate Clause case the Supreme Court took up since 1979.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act.
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an organization may sue in its own right if it has been directly injured, for example through a "drain on the organization's resources", and that so-called "testers", individuals who sought to determine if a company was in violation of the law, may have standing in their own right.
Stanley v. City of Sanford is a pending United States Supreme Court case in which the Court will determine whether or not a former employee who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
